Ummm. You do remember that Bacco was elected on a pro-peace, pro-diplomacy, anti-belligerence, let's-not-run-around-telling-everyone-that-we're-ready-to-go-to-war-with-them platform, right?

That's the sort of campaign ad that Arafel Pagro would run, not Nan Bacco.

Click to expand...

If you want to get technical, Pagro struck me as more of a semi-isolationist, Ron-Paul-ish, "We-should-not-ally-ouselves-with-any-authoratarian-governments" type.

And I am not a supporter of Ron Paul.

As for the ad, its actual words said, "for some, the bear is tame, for others, it's dangerous."

To drag that out in the public sphere does not actually increase Federation security, though. Foreign states would be observing that kind of campaign rhetoric, and it would register with them. They would take it as a message of hostility and belligerence. To make the, "Let's get ready to kick everyone's ass just in case" notion a central part of your political platform is to, in essence, declare to the galaxy that you are untrustworthy, suspicious of others, and unwilling to trust others, and are therefore an unreliable potential ally.

Click to expand...

The ad does not say "Let's get ready to kick everyone's ass just in case". It says, "since no one can know for sure who's right, doesn't it make sense to be as strong as (not stronger than) the bear?"

If the Typhon Pact takes such a statement as a notion that the UFP is "untrustworthy, suspicious of others, and unwilling to trust others, and therefore an unreliable potential ally", rather than simply "a force we can't bully around which me must therefore take seriously", than frankly, it's they who are engaging in fear-culling and warmongering.

Reagan is just lucky that Gorbachev was the guy who came to power in the Soviet Union in '85, leading to the liberalization policies that weakened Soviet unity and promoted the previously-suppressed nationalist sentiments that brought down the USSR.

Click to expand...

You still persist in trying to provoke me, Mr. Bond....

I could easily refute that...but it would take this thread too far off topic.

God knows what would have happened if a less liberal, more hot-headed asshat had taken the Kremlin.

Click to expand...

"Hot-headed", eh? War would have been his fault, then...assuming war broke out.

To drag that out in the public sphere does not actually increase Federation security, though. Foreign states would be observing that kind of campaign rhetoric, and it would register with them. They would take it as a message of hostility and belligerence. To make the, "Let's get ready to kick everyone's ass just in case" notion a central part of your political platform is to, in essence, declare to the galaxy that you are untrustworthy, suspicious of others, and unwilling to trust others, and are therefore an unreliable potential ally.

Click to expand...

The ad does not say "Let's get ready to kick everyone's ass just in case". It says, "since no one can know for sure who's right, doesn't it make sense to be as strong as (not stronger than) the bear?"

If the Typhon Pact takes such a statement as a notion that the UFP is "untrustworthy, suspicious of others, and unwilling to trust others, and therefore an unreliable potential ally", rather than simply "a force we can't bully around which me must therefore take seriously", than frankly, it's they who are engaging in fear-culling and warmongering.

Click to expand...

How would you react if you saw that in Russian Presidential elections, President Medvedev were running on a platform of, "We don't know if the Americans are going to declare war on us for our oil, but shouldn't we build up our military and our nuclear arsenal enough that we can defeat them?"

If you're like most people, you would take it as an implicit threat to the national security of the United States.

So it is with the Typhon Pact. The Federation needs to present itself as being open to peace and diplomacy, not assuage its inner machismo by making undiplomatic messages of its ability to defeat the galaxy.

Reagan is just lucky that Gorbachev was the guy who came to power in the Soviet Union in '85, leading to the liberalization policies that weakened Soviet unity and promoted the previously-suppressed nationalist sentiments that brought down the USSR.

Click to expand...

You still persist in trying to provoke me, Mr. Bond....

Click to expand...

You're the one who brought up Reagan, not me.

"Hot-headed", eh? War would have been his fault, then...assuming war broke out.

Click to expand...

It would have been the fault of both parties.

A man who pokes a bear cannot claim innocence when the bear tries to eat him.

Very true. Heck, maybe Nero blames Spock and the Federation in part because one of the UFP's Khitomer allies was partly responsible for what happened in some way...?

Click to expand...

Partly responsible inadvertently I hope. I wouldn't want our beloved Federation to be involved in nefarious activities of this scale again.

It could be our illegitimate, self-righteous Section 31 again with reasoning such as: "We projected and predicted that the Romulans would be attacking the UFP soon with the new Borg technology they've adapted (Narada). Starfleet wouldn't have a chance." Wouldn't be the first time they've attempted genocide. Despicable.

Very true. Heck, maybe Nero blames Spock and the Federation in part because one of the UFP's Khitomer allies was partly responsible for what happened in some way...?

Click to expand...

Partly responsible inadvertently I hope. I wouldn't want our beloved Federation to be involved in nefarious activities of this scale again.

It could be our illegitimate, self-righteous Section 31 again with reasoning such as: "We projected and predicted that the Romulans would be attacking the UFP soon with the new Borg technology they've adapted (Narada). Starfleet wouldn't have a chance." Wouldn't be the first time they've attempted genocide. Despicable.

Click to expand...

I was thinking maybe the Cardassians would be up to something dirty without telling the Feds, myself...

You clearly haven't been reading enough, then; I am considerably less relativistic than many, many political philosophers and critics who are actually in any way prominent.

Tell me - who was responsible for the start of the second world war?

Click to expand...

Depends. Do you count World War II as starting when Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931, or as starting when the Third Reich invaded Poland in 1939?

I would tend to argue that World War II had a mixture of causes. The most important cause was the fact that expansionist, illiberal dictatorships had taken hold in Germany, Italy, and Japan, but one should not ignore the fact that, in Germany, Hitler was able to seize power in part because of the economic depredations of the German populace after World War I, or that Japan itself had become a major world empire in part because of its desire to avoid becoming one of the many oppressed colonies that they saw the Western countries taking. If such a view were to have a summary, I suppose I would say, "World War II was caused by a combination of the rise of conquest-hungry tyrants and by unresolved issues from World War I."

As for World War I.... No, I can't say I view the Allies or the Central Powers as having been the good guys in that fight. World War I basically stemmed from the competition amongst the Western countries to carve up the world into empires, and as such I view the major powers in that war as having all been the aggressors.

Or for the 9 11 terrorist attack?

Click to expand...

I do believe that I've always held that Osama bin Ladin and the al Qaeda terrorist network were responsible for 9/11. Does that mean that I think we should ignore the sometimes shameful role the U.S. government has played in the politics of the Muslim world? No, it does not. Does the fact that I acknowledge that the United States has done wrong mean that I think 9/11 was in any way justified? No, it does not. President Obama's speech in Cairo on U.S.-Muslim relations earlier this summer was one that outlined most of the basic views I hold on that issue.

Getting back into the Trekverse, I think I've been very clear throughout this thread not to argue that the political actors are necessarily right or accurate, but simply that they would have certain opinions and would be capable of logically defending them.

Who's right? Who's wrong? Well, there's that old saying that the truth is a three-sided sword.

You response was as I predicted, Sci (even included the "obligatory" condescending remark) - well, almost: I expected that you'll go back to the 19th century to explain the war.

Personally, I think the Axis powers lost any right to claim they were justified or even excused in their actions when they began to conquer other nations.
Similarly with bin Laden and WTC.

You want to find motivations for the axis powers leaders/bin Laden? Fine
Just don't forget - they were not puppets - they made their own decisions (which you can't justify with causality chains).
And I doubt the victims from the concentration camps or WTC cared about what happened a decade ago.

And, in the trekverse - there's a big difference between propaganda and being able to morally justify one's position.

Everyone has motivations. They don't simply do things for the sake of it. Sci is simply engaged in attempts to understand and explain the causes behind these conflicts; this includes the motivations of all the participants. Sci never said bin Laden or the Axis powers were right, he or she (sorry, Sci, still not sure) is simply explaining the historical and political background to these events. Surely you don't have a problem with that?

Deranged Nasat,
I asked Sci who was responsible for world war 2.
And he responded - these guys were, but only partly, because they did that because of that other thing, they were practically slaves of circumstances!
Sci takes too much responsibility away from those criminals because of some unconvincing premises, ignoring the fact that they made their choices every step of their way, that they could at any time take another road.

IHMO, the 2387 supernova happened in a parallel timeline. This will remain my opinion until I am dragged off to CBS/Paramount Re-education Camp.

Click to expand...

It's my opinion as well.

I've resigned myself to the possibility that subsequent Trek novels will include it, but they don't have to. Not ever. Romulus could endure for a millennium longer in the current state of Treklit. Clearly the bulk of Trek XI exists in a parallel timeline (or, as I also maintain, an entirely separate universe), so there's no reason its "present" couldn't as well.

I mean, if you take Countdown into account, that's what MUST be the case, as it exists in the same universe as ST Online which is obviously incompatible with Treklit anyway.

How would you react if you saw that in Russian Presidential elections, President Medvedev were running on a platform of, "We don't know if the Americans are going to declare war on us for our oil, but shouldn't we build up our military and our nuclear arsenal enough that we can defeat them?"

If you're like most people, you would take it as an implicit threat to the national security of the United States.

So it is with the Typhon Pact. The Federation needs to present itself as being open to peace and diplomacy, not assuage its inner machismo by making undiplomatic messages of its ability to defeat the galaxy.

Click to expand...

For the second time, "Be as strong as the bear" does NOT mean "build up our military and our nuclear arsenal enough that we can defeat them".

"As strong as" is for the purpose of maintaining the balance of power. "Stonger than" is for the purpose of "building up our military and our nuclear arsenal enough that we can defeat them".

You're the one who brought up Reagan, not me.

Click to expand...

So I was. But if you study my previous post, I think you'll find that the reference wasn't quite so political. After all, the description of the bear in the ad, I think, fits the Pact quite nicely. To paraphrase: "For some, the bear is easy to see. Others don't see it at all. For some, the bear is tame. For other's it's wild. But no one can be certain who's right."

You take relativism to previously unseen peaks, Sci.

Click to expand...

Try multiculturalism, brother.... Nice call.

You clearly haven't been reading enough, then; I am considerably less relativistic than many, many political philosophers and critics who are actually in any way prominent.

Deranged Nasat,
I asked Sci who was responsible for world war 2.
And he responded - these guys were, but they did that because of that other thing, they were practically slaves of circumstances!
Sci takes too much responsibility from those criminals because of some unconvincing premises, ignoring that they made their choices every step of their way, that they could at any time take another road.

Click to expand...

Sci isn't ignoring their choices. He/she never said it wasn't about choice. But people make choices because of their experiences, and the details of their specific situation and circumstances. I don't think it's an "unconvincing" view that the economic deprivations in Germany, leading on from the reparations they were made to pay following WWI, contributed indirectly and in part to WWII; I was under the assumption this is pretty much accepted fact. This isn't saying "It was all really the Allies' fault", it's simply saying the actions of many nations contributed to what occurred. As you say, it's about choice: we all make choices- and everyone's choice effects everyone elses'. We are one: politics, like anything involving multiple people, is far too complex to let us hold each individual in a vacuum. This isn't to say everyone bears equal responsibility, but awareness of the effect we all have on one another helps prevent further conflict. My nation acknowledging its role in contributing to the situation in Germany prior to WWII allows us British to remember an important lesson: Treating a fallen foe poorly simply leads to them arising again with renewed hostility.

Deranged Nasat,
I asked Sci who was responsible for world war 2.
And he responded - these guys were, but only partly, because they did that because of that other thing, they were practically slaves of circumstances!
Sci takes too much responsibility away from those criminals because of some unconvincing premises, ignoring the fact that they made their choices every step of their way, that they could at any time take another road.

Click to expand...

Oh, stop it, already. He's saying nothing of the sort, and you know it. If you want a flamewar so badly, find another forum for it.

Deranged Nasat
"But people make choices because of their experiences, and the details of their specific situation and circumstances."

You make it sound as if we're organic robots - input circumstances and obtain the computed decision. Such a view makes concepts such as morals and responsibility (and, implicitly, our discussion) irrelevant, inapplicable to humans.
I don't agree with this notion at all.

Hitler rose to power due to economic conditions (partly) - but what did he do with that power?
"Japan itself had become a major world empire in part because of its desire to avoid becoming one of the many oppressed colonies" - and then graduated to doing some oppression ot its own.

Deranged Nasat,
I asked Sci who was responsible for world war 2.
And he responded - these guys were, but only partly, because they did that because of that other thing, they were practically slaves of circumstances!
Sci takes too much responsibility away from those criminals because of some unconvincing premises, ignoring the fact that they made their choices every step of their way, that they could at any time take another road.

Click to expand...

Oh, stop it, already. He's saying nothing of the sort, and you know it. If you want a flamewar so badly, find another forum for it.

Click to expand...

I think you misunderstood. I have no intention of starting a "flamewar", and my quoted post had no such purpose.
So - be less aggessive, Ok?